Nearholmer Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 Not good at all for the confidence thing. They’ve been pushing the £1 fares hard for the half-term week, and I can imagine people having taken advantage of the lovely weather today to go on local outings - until a family commitment arose at the last minute, I was intending to do so myself, by taking the train to Bedford then cycling over to Sandy Heath. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Davexoc Posted March 2 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 2 All seems to be running more or less to plan today on the Bedford service. I see there is a Bletchley CE move to Aylesbury in conjuction with the land slip just south of there later that is having to go the long way round, 5 hour trip. https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:U04090/2024-03-02/detailed Considerable savings to be had if it could have gone the EWR route, if the connection gets reinstated at Calvert. Savings to be had even if it could of gone via Bicester, could have been used as one of those 'track settlement' trains going that way.... 4 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
balders Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 I used it for only the second time on Monday........other than a railtour last year......and it was very pleasant. Passenger numbers were good considering it was a Monday early afternoon and 150139 was very smart. Interior was clean and tidy.....though t'Northern blue is a bit of a clash with the LNW livery! Good work and hopefully it'll carry on in the same vein. Regards Guy 5 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Ray H Posted March 6 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 6 There was a short comment on this (early) evening news that there's some money been allocated in the budget (?) for work on the section between Bedford & Bletchley as part of EWR. It didn't say what the money was actually for. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Davexoc Posted March 6 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 6 2 hours ago, Ray H said: There was a short comment on this (early) evening news that there's some money been allocated in the budget (?) for work on the section between Bedford & Bletchley as part of EWR. It didn't say what the money was actually for. Recent update now posted.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-68491452 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jamie92208 Posted March 7 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 7 This is probably for Parliamentary work and property purchase. I' m not sure whether this will need a Hybrid Billie HS2 or a Transport and Works order. Jamie 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
62613 Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 11 hours ago, Davexoc said: Recent update now posted.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-68491452 "Supported by £240 million from existing budgets"; so what's losing out? 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 (edited) Isn’t that the form of words one uses to recycle an old promise, to make it sound like a new one? Like announcing to the family: “I will spend £50 paying the gas bill next month, supported from existing budgets!”, and expecting a round of applause. He’s either already committed ages ago to spend it, or is using some of the money not going towards the northern bit of HS2, I reckon. Edited March 7 by Nearholmer 1 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SM42 Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 (edited) Err. Doesn't that bit already exist? Bedford to Cambridge I could understand. Andy Edited March 7 by SM42 1 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted March 7 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 7 (edited) 22 minutes ago, SM42 said: Err. Doesn't that bit already exist? Bedford to Cambridge I could understand. Andy It might exist but due to things like signal spacing and an abundance of level crossing line speeds are low and journey times long. In other words when seen in the wider context of the East -West scheme (which is basically a new build railway then the current state of Bletchley - Bedford becomes something which threatens the viability / effectiveness of the whole project and thus it needs a substantial upgrade on what currently exsisting to be useful. If it helps imagine the 3 / 4 lane M25 still only had two 2 lane tunnels to cross the river at Dartford and you get the idea…. Edited March 7 by phil-b259 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 Yep, it exists alright, as a huge problem in the middle of the Oxford-Cambridge route. Working out how to upgrade it to meet all the competing needs, wants, wishes, and whims that are in play is a job possibly best given to the former staff of Bletchley Park. 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SM42 Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 14 minutes ago, phil-b259 said: It might exist but due to things like signal spacing and an abundance of level crossing line speeds are low and journey times long. In other words when seen in the wider context of the East -West scheme (which is basically a new build railway then the current state of Bletchley - Bedford becomes something which threatens the viability / effectiveness of the whole project and thus it needs a substantial upgrade on what currently exsisting to be useful. If it helps imagine the 3 / 4 lane M25 still only had two 2 lane tunnels to cross the river at Dartford and you get the idea…. The only way round it then is like the M25 ..... A completely new line that bypasses the bottleneck that is the existing. Not sure there's enough money in the pot for that. Andy 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted March 7 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 7 On 06/03/2024 at 22:01, Davexoc said: Recent update now posted.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-68491452 13 hours ago, 62613 said: "Supported by £240 million from existing budgets"; so what's losing out? It probably started out as £500m for a project somewhere which was then moved to somewhere else, by which time parlimentary waste and inefficiency had reducced it to £400m, then to a third destination who "received" £300 and then to EW rail where it has shrunk to £240m 😉 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted March 7 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 7 53 minutes ago, SM42 said: The only way round it then is like the M25 ..... A completely new line that bypasses the bottleneck that is the existing. Not sure there's enough money in the pot for that. Andy Not quite - interventions like building bridges to get rid of as many level crossings as possible plus modifications to signals / station platforms and possibly a loop or two would do wonders fro improving what exists. That all comes with a hefty price tag though - not as much as building a new line would but hefty nonetheless 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Metropolitan H Posted March 8 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 8 If you look closely at the most recent ideas for Bletchley - Bedford, things have been rather descoped! It seems that most of the road level crossings will remain, with a rather trimmed back increase in line speed. The remaining major works are re-instate double track through Fenny Stratford to Bow Brickhill and realign the final stretch into Bedford Station - and maybe provide a passing loop in each direction somewhere. Then of course the signalling will cost a lot! CH 3 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 (edited) 7 hours ago, phil-b259 said: would do wonders fro improving what exists. From a railway throughout perspective, possibly, but the reason this is so complex is that the railway runs through real places, with real people living in them, who don’t necessarily want whacking great bridges plonked in the middles of their town or villages, and have made that very clear indeed in every consultation so far. Met H is right about the emerging scope, which is driven by the combination of feedback from consultation, potential cost of all the civil engineering that was in some proposals, and likely timescale to deliver all that civils work. As I’ve said before, I think some bridges will come back on the agenda at some stage in the future, because however good the signalling can be made, a more frequent train service will cause huge road traffic jams at some of the LCs, which will gradually turn the balance of local residents from anti-bridge, to pro-bridge in a few places. Edited March 8 by Nearholmer 3 5 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted March 8 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 8 6 minutes ago, Nearholmer said: From a railway throughout perspective, possibly, but the reason this is so complex is that the railway runs through real places, with real people living in them, who don’t necessarily want whacking great bridges plonked in the middles of their town or villages, and have made that very clear indeed in every consultation so far. Level crossings are a hazard which the railway can well do without, particularly seeing as the general public increasingly cannot be trusted to use them properly. As such I have no patience whatsoever with NIMBYs whinging about bridges ‘soiling’ their views etc. - they need to go! No ifs, no buts…… Obviously in situations where extensive demolition is the only way to build a bridge then I am a bit more sympathetic - but in what is a fundamentally rural landscape (compared to the likes of SW London) then in 99.999999.999% of cases its perfectly possible replace level crossings with bridges - footbridges at the site of the crossing for pedestrians and new road bridges further out (which could also function as partial bypasses for the settlement. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard Lamb Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 What is wrong with putting the roads under the railway rather than over it? Bernard 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 (edited) It isn’t a “fundamentally rural landscape”, as in no houses or anything else for large distances around though, is it? Look at each LC on the route in turn, and you will find that several of the really troublesome (as in busy road traffic) ones are in places where sticking a big flyover in would create immense intrusion, which is why the consultation yielded such negative feedback around those options. If you don’t know the areas well, come and have a proper look to understand the implications at places like Fenny Stratford and Woburn Sands. Tunnelling under the railway might work at some of them, but I have a feeling that the width needed for the above-below transition points at either end, so as to continue local access to places immediately adjacent to the railway, would created major difficulty in just the same way that over-bridges would. And, it would still cost a fortune and take ages. The FPs and bridleways could and should be transferred to bridges, although even a couple of those will get expensive because the lie of the land will make them awkward in terms of the approach ramps. Basically, it’s easy to think of things that could be done, and much harder to decide what should be done. It is a very tricky section indeed. Edited March 8 by Nearholmer 8 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 22 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said: What is wrong with putting the roads under the railway rather than over it? Bernard Where road and rail are approximately at the same level, putting the road under is usually much more disruptive and expensive. With a road over rail bridge the railway can be mostly left alone, but digging down will disrupt it as well as the road. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard Lamb Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 14 minutes ago, Edwin_m said: Where road and rail are approximately at the same level, putting the road under is usually much more disruptive and expensive. With a road over rail bridge the railway can be mostly left alone, but digging down will disrupt it as well as the road. All very true. But what price do you put on pacifying the local population? It might well have been quicker and cheaper to have continued the Bletchley flyover all the way to Bedford. Built at the same time as the A421 trains could have been running by now. Various vested interests seem to be doing all thay can to delay this project. Bernard 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium corneliuslundie Posted March 8 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 8 As was said, after a few years of a service as intensive as the line can manage the locals will be begging for bridges. Which will then be far more expensive and there will probably have been more local development making siting even more difficult. No easy answers. Jonathan 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Ray H Posted March 8 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 8 Silly (?) thought. Close two adjacent level crossings and replace each of them with a footbridge that isn't too bike unfriendly and build a new road bridge between the two (now ex) crossings. Would that be an option anywhere? 2 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Metropolitan H Posted March 8 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 8 What I didn't say earlier is that the vast majority of the footpath / accomodation crossings are scheduled for closure with divertions to nearby "Road" crossings or a few proposed non-road bridges. See https://eastwestrail.co.uk/proposed-route/bletchley-to-bedford-2 and then follow the link to the "Route Update Report". Particularly you should read carefully from page 68 onwards taking note of the proposals for each of the 31 crossings - of various types - given in table 1 (9 pages), 16 are being closed under the latest proposals (some already have been). Regards Chris H 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted March 8 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 8 3 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said: It might well have been quicker and cheaper to have continued the Bletchley flyover all the way to Bedford. Am I the only one thinking about all the opposition that would have drawn? 4 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now